Yeah - I think we all kind of get the whole ~ Maximizing Dice ~ thing, but I also think we probably give it more ( or perhaps the wrong kind of ) value...

Rolls are of course determined to a very large degree on cards available, and more importantly, how many units they are able to activate. Is there some element of strategic brilliance in choosing which cards to play? Well - sure, but it does not always take a Rommel to figure it out...

I think we do newer players an injustice in saying ~ Roll More Dice ~, because we frequently ignore ( or forget, as we are busy basking in our brilliance ) that there is a somewhat specific road map to doing so.

Just my two cents. By the time you get 100 or so games under your belt, you've become pretty efficient at playing this game. Then if you are playing an opponent with the same experience, and especially if it's a scenario you've both played many times, then it's all cards and dice.

I think the only way to separate the really great player from a good one is to have a tournament where you play scenarios that you are seeing for the first time. You will then have to adapt strategy 'on the go' to what you are confronted with in topography,units,and cards. Errors will then be made in strategy, and after playing 5 or 6 scenarios, the better player will come out on top.

I would really love to conduct a tournament this way. Opponents would be decided beforehand and the scenario made available for 4 to 5 hours on one day only. Then it's on to the next one. Unfortunately, the logistics would be prohibitive. However, the excitement would be palpable as each player would anticipate the upcoming scenario, with very little time to prepare.

I don't agree with Eric. I still learn stuf most days I play this game. I don't think after 100 games you have perfected your playing style.

The way you manage your hand, some players "save up" for a big push and don't mind taking a while doing that. Others manage to shift units form left flank to middle to right flank according to the sequence of cards they play. They can be thinking ahead three to four cards.

I find myself going for that lonely inf man, and then realise my tank is ou in the open without me having cards in that section. (praying for flags )

So I feel there is room for improvement. My next argument is: are there players you "fear" more than others? If so then they have evolved their playing style/strategies further than most of us. (and are worth playing and studying.) Also I see big differences in efficiency in player with only a few hundred games and those who have played over a thousand.

So in conclusion: I feel that I can still grow in the way I play the game and I will certainly enjoy Every minute of that growth. There is still a learning curve out there. Let's get on it.

I stand corrected. I agree that it takes more than 100 games to get proficient and that you do learn new strategies as you evolve. I'm just not sure you learn anything by playing the same map hundreds of times. There is definitely a 'winning' strategy for most maps. If you've played a map hundreds of times your play almost becomes unconscious without realizing it. I guess what I was saying is that two even players playing a map they have seen numerous times, will have the outcome decided by cards and dice alone.

Jeronimon's point of playing someone you fear is intriguing. I have to say I fear the cautious player who sets up his attacks, especially if you know it's coming and have no cards to stop it. I'm more comfortable playing the aggressive player who I can counterattack.